Thursday, January 31, 2013

The new pro-abortion meme

Abortion mongers have shifted their rhetoric rather dramatically in the past couple of months. It is a major change in the terms of the debate, in a way that we on the pro-life side may not fully realize.

Abortion proponents have been dumping the "pro-choice" canard for a new, and much more effective, lie.

Fashionista Nanette Lepore got the memo, and she explains:

... January marks the 40-year anniversary of the historic U.S. Supreme Court decisionRoe v. Wade that legalized abortion. Young women have grown up assuming that abortion access is a given -- that every woman should be able to make decisions about her pregnancy and her health. They don't know what our nation was like when abortion was illegal -- when women died from unsafe abortions -- when a woman's decision about her pregnancy was up to the politicians who decided the abortion laws in any given state. In my hometown, abortion was performed by strangers pretending they were doctors. 
Nearly half a century of safe and legal abortion has been empowering for women, and has allowed us to lead our lives on our own terms. Whatever we decide about our pregnancies -- these are decisions that a woman can make because of the historic Roe decision. It's something that I recognize as so important for women everywhere, but it's also something I'm very aware needs to be protected. 
Because unfortunately, politicians continue to try and undermine women's health care access -- in state after state, we've seen relentless attempts to chip away at access to abortion. Just last month in Michigan, state legislators came together behind a bill that would create burdensome restrictions on abortion providers in the state -- a thinly veiled move aimed at limiting a woman's access to abortion that has nothing to do with improving women's health and everything to do with denying them care. We've seen similar attempts across the country -- from my home state of Ohio to Texas and beyond. 
This is wrong. And it's dangerous. 
I will not let this most personal of health care decisions be undermined by politicians. I want this medical option to be safe and legal for young women today and for generations of young women to come to consider if and when they need it. As a longtime supporter of Planned Parenthood, I have seen that they work tirelessly to protect access to safe and legal so that women can make their own health care decisions.

The abortionistas are rebranding baby-killing as "women's health".  Why? The rhetorical effectiveness of "choice" may be diminishing, but I think that there is a more important reason for the change in tack.

Obamacare.

"Choice" is a counter-productive term in a socialized health care system, because of course the things that you "choose" need not necessarily be paid for by the government (i.e. your fellow taxpayers). The meme: Plastic surgery is a "choice". Abortion is a medical necessity.

Abortion-mongers are rebranding abortion as necessary life-saving (!) women's healthcare, to guarantee that it will be funded and protected by our new government healthcare apparatchiks.

Defining a procedure which isn't successful unless someone dies as "life-saving healthcare" should make you spit your coffee, but this is Obama's America.

Euthanasia will be included eventually, as well. Get used to it.

Oh, and I hate to use "meme" in the title for this post, but since it suggests a viral infection of the mind, it seems to fit.

18 comments:

  1. The far more powerful meme in that piece is the very libertarian notion that one’s personal decisions shouldn’t be made for them by politicians. That’s a meme conservatives are already infected with, and is now being leveraged to support abortion rights. Anti-abortion laws represent maximal government intrusion; forcing women to have babies they don’t want.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @KW:

      LOL. A liberal-- a LIBERAL-- bemoans making personal decisions for people by politicians. What do you think Obamacare is? What do you think the IRS does? What do you think the millions of laws and regulations you statists have imposed on ordinary Americans do?

      You outlaw scores of types of guns that citizens have a Constitutional right to use for self-defense. You force the Catholic Church to pay for birth control. You go to Federal Court to force teachers to remain silent about criticism of Darwinism. You call the police when you see a prayer mural or a manger scene in a public place.

      But suddenly you get all libertarian-like when it comes to women killing their babies.

      Liberalism-- the most intrusive Big Government ideology in our country-- is Alice-in-Wonderland.

      Delete
    2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyJanuary 31, 2013 at 9:04 AM

      It's just George Lakoff's linguistics being put into play. Lakoff argues (and you can see the result in the excerpt included above) that the language of the statist movement should be "caring" and "moral". And indeed, who can fault "access to health care"? Dr Mengele?

      Before Lakoff, Orwell wrote about the use of language to achieve political ends (although not with such Lakoff's avuncular, approving mien). His most useful comment with respect to the Lepore passage is: "Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them." In fact, the abortionists take great umbrage when actual pictures are used. They cry "Unfair!" and "Revolting!". And the photos are, indeed, revolting.

      But the rebranding is complete; the Department of Abortion, Contraception, and Euthanasia is already named the Department of "Health and Human Services". Very like the Ministry of Truth.

      Delete
    3. KW,
      Not only is your comment hypocritical (ie Dr Egnor) and the language utterly Orwellian in nature (ie Adm.) but it is utterly self contradictory.
      There are many libertarians who would defend the right for people to do whatever they want, but they would not - for a second - concede it should be paid for by the general public under a tax code.
      Nor would they suggest such legislation should come from a FEDERAL court.
      Also, you should note that the majority of libertarian minded folks do not see abortion as doing something to one's self and therefore not a matter of 'women's health', but rather of taking a life.
      It's simple: If you want to kill the unborn and for some perverse reason it is legal to do so in your region- then PAY FOR IT YOURSELF.
      Stop pushing your own moral bankruptcy on everyone else about you.
      Just a note to the wise (ie not KW): If people had to actually PAY for abortions in all but the most severe medical circumstances, they may reduce the amount of casual rutting they engage in, or alternately use multiple contraceptive procedures when they do.
      It would not be a complete solution to the issue, but a step in the right direction.

      Delete
    4. Yes, forget about the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health. Just drink the Kool-Aid and you will see it’s really the department of sex without consequence and euthanasia.

      -KW

      Delete
    5. I think this must be a parody of KW. Even he is not THAT stupid, surely....

      Delete
    6. Just a further note on the Orwellian aspect: Even the term 'liberal' itself has been hijacked. It has become a dirty word. A liberal state once described an open, free society.
      Now it is all about a kind of globalist, Fabianesque, utopian (dystopian, actually) view. It has little or no resemblance to the original term.

      Delete
    7. Killing your child isn't a personal decision.

      TRISH

      Delete
    8. You wouldn't confuse a conservative with a libertarian would you? Although both generally agree on economic issues and the size of government. Libertarians generally accept that individuals have the right to decide for themselves on moral issues. Conservatives generally agree that society should have a proscriptive role regarding morals.

      So why confusive a liberal with a progressive? Both generally agree on the size of government and on economics. But they don't agree on the degree of coercion necessary to have a well running society. A progressive, for example, in order to battle the increasing obesity epidemic in America might ban the sale of sugar laden soft drinks. A liberal might just put an extra tax on sugary drinks. An individual can still have the drink if desired, but will have to pay an extra price.

      I regard myself as a liberal with some libertarian sympathies. I think that there are some things that government do very well and some things that private business does very well too. The things that government does has to be funded by taxation. So each person has to pay his or her fair rate of tax equally. If a society collectively decides that there are not enough babies being born, threatening a shortage of workers to support the elderly in future years, then it shouldn't make abortion illegal or difficult. It should provide more financial support to women to have babies. And to rear them and provide them with an adequate education.

      Laws need to be followed if they exist, and need to be amended or cancelled if situations change. The Second Amendment didn't give the right to own semiautomatic guns with large clips, because they didn't exist at the time. It has been read into the amendment subsequently. But what makes you think that you'll need such a weapon for self-defence?

      Delete
    9. Bach,

      Liberal is a 'newspeak' word, I am afraid. It's de facto use has very little to do with any textbook definition. That is the problem.
      A libertarian believes in freedoms and individuality - not moral ambiguity. You seem to confuse us with Anarchists.

      Your point regards to semi automatic rifles is well taken. In fact, it leaves me wondering why you cannot see the obvious connection. Perhaps you are just not familiar with the 2A?

      The second amendment guarantees the right of citizens to arm themselves and form militias that were the bulk of the forces in that period.
      That means modern/current weapons, Bach. Muskets in those days, rifles these days.
      Here's a simple measure that works: If the police and military are to have access to these weapons, then so are the civilian populations.
      The 2A is not about protecting your home or hunting. It is about protecting the US constitution and personal liberties. It is a guarantee against foreign or domestic tyranny. There is no wiggle room here. That is what it is for. It has worked well for centuries, in that respect. As the founders said: 'self evident'.

      Do you recall what Amd. Yamamoto said about invading the USA and why it was not feasible? 'A gun behind every blade of grass' ring a bell? An armed population is a deterrent to invasion and tyranny.

      Also, you should also take into account what a semi-automatic actually is. It is the most common form of rifle and pistol.
      It is capable of firing about 60 rounds/minute in the hands of a trained professional (20-30 in most).
      An AUTOMATIC rifle (now restricted) is a weapon that can fire 900+ rounds/min. Military grade 'assault rifles' (a political term) are fully automatic.
      An M4 is NOT an AR15 (the AR does NOT stand for Assault Rifle - but rather the manufacturers name.)
      Most hunting rifles are semi-auto. You pull, it shoots - no need to pull back a bolt or slide each time you fire (2 seconds tops).
      The magazine size is also a straw man.
      It takes, even an amateur, only 4-8 seconds to change a clip.

      Finally, rights are not about 'needs'.
      A prisoners 'needs' are seen to. A slave has his essential 'needs' looked after. They have very little or no rights.
      A right is a basic guarantee of your individual freedom. You may choose to (or not) exercise those rights AT WILL.
      Example? If you want to speak on a subject that is dear to you, you have the RIGHT to do so. If you would rather remain silent, you are free NOT to exercise your right. But simply because you decide that speaking out is not 'needed' does not mean that another man's right is somehow invalidated or that the 1A itself somehow not needed.
      Or alternately, simply because someone abuses those rights in order to commit a crime or coerce someone else into a crime, does not mean that these rights should be revoked for all the rest of the law abiding citizenship.
      The same principle applies to the 2A.

      A violation of any such rights requires a collective response in defence of them, according to the US constitution.

      Whenever I hear someone asking 'why do you need' in regards to basic rights, I know I am speaking to someone who does not understand the constitutional meaning of the word 'rights'.

      In closing I will approximate the words of the American founder, Ben Franklin:
      ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”

      Delete
    10. CrusadeRex,

      Are you sure you're a libertarian and not a conservative? Libertarians have a little of the anarchist in them.

      Delete
    11. Libertarian is about as close as you'll get to putting me into a political box, Bach.

      I may hold some socially conservative views, and some liberal views (in the old fashioned sense) but I am libertarian in my politics.

      I dislike the false dichotomy of conservatism and liberalism; neither are what they claim to be. Progressives and Necons strike me as barley aware of their surroundings.
      I reject the dialectics of 'right and left'.
      I don't like petty laws. I despise the growing legal/prison industry, and see it as a form of slavery.
      I stand against prohibition, but not regulation and control of substances. If a county or state wants to be 'dry' and prohibit the sale of booze or pot, so be it. If a person dislikes the vote in one region, they are free to move to one that better suits them. But nobody should be jailed for ingesting something or being in possession of an organic (ie natural) substance. The people should choose what is permitted to be sold, not some judge or panel of bureaucrat or technocrats.
      I believe in individual choice and freedom.
      I draw the line, as do most libertarians, when those choices harm others and violate natural law.

      The madness is that we live in a society that permits a woman to kill her unborn offspring on a whim, and sanctifies sodomy - but jails significant portions of minority and native populations for smoking a traditional plant.

      As a libertarian I seek to redress this imbalance. I seek to do so by applying the common sense of natural law and God given rights (what you call 'objective').

      As for the anarchism: Every soldier has a touch of the anarchist in them. Entropy is the nature of war. We adapt to it.
      That said, most of the self described anarchists I have known were academic poseurs. Marxists in a trendy drag.
      Only a handful of former military biker types seemed to actually 'walk the walk'.

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. Yes, Pepe, I saw that. They speak of watching hands and feet extracted, of seeing small heads shipped off the labs to that research brain tissue. This is the personal decision that KW speaks of.

      "I stepped forward and peered into the pail. This time I broke out in a cold sweat. Dear Jesus! I thought. I just saw someone murdered! And I just stood and watched! Why did I come down here? How will I ever put this out of my mind?"

      It may be the only personal decision that he thinks people should be allowed to make. He's all about the government forcing people to be unwilling participants in homosexuals' faux weddings, for example. He doesn't think I should be allowed to own a gun.

      Delete
    2. I agree, abortion, like war, doesn't look so bad in the abstract, but both are blood and guts acts!

      Delete
    3. Pépé,

      As a career military person I could not agree more. Both are visceral acts of violence and involve killing.
      But, at least we soldiers do not attempt to sanitize war. We are, broadly speaking, very honest about it's horrors. We are just about the most anti-war people you can meet; as we have to fight them.
      Only the politicians, technocrats, and their sycophants attempt to make war (and abortion) into abstractions.
      Very good point, Pépé.

      Delete
  3. "Euthanasia will be included eventually, as well. Get used to it."

    This is "the future"

    ReplyDelete